Fourth Quarter GDP

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Sorry the numbers don't support your political position.

more than for year into Obama and we have .1% growth. Truly awesome and please don't talk party lines because you are one of th biggest rah rah pom pom waving posters on the board md.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

more than for year into Obama and we have .1% growth. Truly awesome and please don't talk party lines because you are one of th biggest rah rah pom pom waving posters on the board md.

That is what happens when you cut government spending. Short-term growth declines. For example, if Government accounts for 25% of the economy, and you cut it back by 1%, you see a decline in GDP of 0.25%, or 1% annualized.

However, if you truly believe in Conservative economic philosophy, you should be applauding this short-term decline in growth, since conservative orthodoxy would say that cutting government will lead to long-term growth.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

That is what happens when you cut government spending. Short-term growth declines. For example, if Government accounts for 25% of the economy, and you cut it back by 1%, you see a decline in GDP of 0.25%, or 1% annualized.

However, if you truly believe in Conservative economic philosophy, you should be applauding this short-term decline in growth, since conservative orthodoxy would say that cutting government will lead to long-term growth.

In case you haven't notice, there is no money

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Yep. Even in the short term despite massive cuts to government spending, which come out of GDP.

Please define massive on a percent of total budget
I need a good laugh

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

Please define massive on a percent of total budget
I need a good laugh

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 14.8 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third. National defense decreased 22.0 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent. Nondefense increased 1.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.0 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm

Te be fair, there is a reasonable amount of seasonality in government spending, with the 4th quarter typically being lower than the third quarter. But the decline in the fourth quarter was much larger than the increase in the third quarter.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

In case you haven't notice, there is no money

There is plenty of money. However, we have decided not to take additional money out of the private sector to fund the public sector. And in the short term, that will cause a decrease in GDP, as GDP does not measure the redistribution, only the final investment and consumption. Most conservative economists would argue that is the correct decision for long-term growth, but nobody would argue against the idea that it lowers short-term GDP.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

There is plenty of money. However, we have decided not to take additional money out of the private sector to fund the public sector. And in the short term, that will cause a decrease in GDP, as GDP does not measure the redistribution, only the final investment and consumption. Most conservative economists would argue that is the correct decision for long-term growth, but nobody would argue against the idea that it lowers short-term GDP.

Oh yeah plenty of money. Thats the problem with you guys
Nobody in their right mind believes this

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Oh yeah plenty of money. Thats the problem with you guys

Unless government is spending at a rate of over 100%, then there is enough money to pay for government. However, the choice is whether that money is better left in the private sector or moved into the public sector. We have, correctly, decided to leave much of it in the private sector, as private sector innovation in many fields far outpaces centrally planned innovation. But it would be incorrect to say that there is literally no money, as there is money that we decide is better spent elsewhere.

[Dreamliner]

Still Bush's fault.

Also, Bush's fault as long as is necessary.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Unless government is spending at a rate of over 100%, then there is enough money to pay for government. However, the choice is whether that money is better left in the private sector or moved into the public sector. We have, correctly, decided to leave much of it in the private sector, as private sector innovation in many fields far outpaces centrally planned innovation. But it would be incorrect to say that there is literally no money, as there is money that we decide is better spent elsewhere.

I'm sorry but this is delusional, but if you choose to believe it then fine. We can't not continue to go deeper and deeper into debt

[dangolegators]

And the sequester will reduce GDP and cons will blame Obama for reduced GDP even though they want the spending cuts. It's a win/win for cons -- the get the spending cuts they want and they get to blame Obama for reduced GDP. Of course there is no intellectual honesty to this, but what else is new when it comes to conservatives?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by 108

yes, no, maybe...there certainly isn't a standard we can look at

when Gov reduces spending it doesn't mean the private sector will fill that vacuum and more

i mean, it would be one thing if less spending meant less taxes, and therefore more money into the economy would increase demand, but we have $16 trillion bigs ones to reduce

Absolutely yes. The only government spending that has a multiplier effect is spending for NEW infrastructure.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

...the get the spending cuts they want and they get to blame Obama for reduced GDP. ?

Plus, they get to take credit for being fiscally responsible.

What is not to like?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Probably should have waited for the adjustment:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj



So we are still waiting on that recession. But rest assured, it will eventually come. Just don't go crowing about it when it happens years after you initially predicted it.

Nice.

[mastoidbone]

.1 GDP for a qtr is terrible---it means chronic unemployment and exploding poverty---is that the best you got?

.1 GDP is 100% consistent with a recession---as NEGATIVE GDP is not part of recession call--though of course is often associated-a good example is recession call of 2001 where there NEVER was 2 qtrs of consecutive negative GDP....just a slowing of business and output......sound familiar?

Plus there are more revisions to come---let's see.

The latest Chicago PMI was quite a surprise to the up--so we maybe starting to climb out of it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

.1 GDP for a qtr is terrible---it means chronic unemployment and exploding poverty---is that the best you got?

.1 GDP is 100% consistent with a recession---as NEGATIVE GDP is not part of recession call--though of course is often associated-a good example is recession call of 2001.

Yea, one has to wonder by md rushed over to this thread to brag about this.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

The latest Chicago PMI was quite a surprise to the up--so we maybe starting to climb out of it.

So we might be starting to climb out of a recession we're not actually in?

[neisgator]

I suggest looking at Walmarts sales when you wanna know if the economy is in good or bad shape.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Still Bush's fault.

Also, Bush's fault as long as is necessary.

He isn't blaming Bush...the 4th Q GDP was negatively impacted because of the BCA cuts in Govt spending.


Sometimes I wonder if all of the misinformation here is ignorance or a intentionally partisan facade....


While you're bitching about the economic result of cutting govt spending...


What major industrial country would you rather be economically speaking right now?

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by neisgator

I suggest looking at Walmarts sales when you wanna know if the economy is in good or bad shape.

Pretty sure one could spin a Wally World rise or fall any way they'd like. If there is a decent one-company barometer, I'd say it's UPS.